LaSalle: America's CEO presidency

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, in its own out-of-focus manner, represents a few different ideas. It signals a major shift in the Republican party. It represents the end of a Caucasian majority being the key to electoral success.

Look deeper, and it represents the peak of a relatively new idea in American politics — the idea of having a CEO instead of a president.

Through the entirety of the campaign cycle, Romney placed the emphasis almost exclusively on his successful record in the corporate world. Social issues and foreign policy were afterthoughts, subject to an attempted balance between attacking his opponent while himself holding to a non-threatening status quo. The economy was where the fight was.

He tried to sell America on the idea of a CEO president, as opposed to a politician. On paper, it’s an idea as easy to understand as it is logical — here’s a guy that knows how to cut costs, keep things organized and keep things efficient. Our country has money problems. Let’s elect the guy that solves money problems!

Not so fast.

To simplify either the role of CEO or the role of president of the United States to that of simply being the “management” is inaccurate. The most striking comparison is in the nature of each position. A CEO of a company is inherently self-serving. Their paycheck and bonus is the ultimate goal, and justifiably so. That’s how capitalism works. The president, however, is in a position that should ultimately be selfless. The president is there to serve the American people.

On top of that, you can’t fire citizens that cost you too much — although I’m sure Donald Trump would like to try.

Similarly, the president has less control over his constituents than the typical CEO. From columnist/blogger Jonathan V. Last:

“CEOs say jump and everyone around them says how high. The president says jump and half of Congress tries to countermand the order while getting him fired, and the other branch of government gets to decide whether jumping is even theoretically allowed.”

The overarching idea that a successful businessman can translate his skills to making a successful economy is on its way out. However, there are some comparisons between the roles of CEO and president that we — as well as the Obama administration — can learn from.

First is the idea of accountability. A CEO is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the company, no matter how sparse and distant their personal involvement may be.

The best modern example is the BP oil spill in the gulf — then-CEO Tony Hayward did not personally go and cause the oil platform to explode, he did not go and personally spread oil along the Gulf Coast and he did not go out and harm the widlife one fish at a time. But as CEO of the company, accountability for the incident ultimately rests on his shoulders. He became the public’s punching bag, and rightfully so.

A similar sense of responsibility is a fair way to treat the presidency.

Since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the executive branch’s response has been one of mixed messages and poor communication both internally and with the American people.

The White House has had trouble getting its story straight — was it a pre-planned terrorist attack? Was it the result of a spontaneous riot? Who’s running this show? The president is. Any miscommunication from any member of the executive branch, including Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, needs to rest on President Obama’s shoulders.

The same could be said for the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Even if President Obama had no knowledge whatsoever of the program, he is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the executive branch, just as a CEO is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the company.

America doesn’t need a CEO to run the country, but having a CEO’s sense of accountability in the White House would be a step in the right direction.